263 réponses à ce sujet

[Bill Casey]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Control is stupid. Too likely to fail and get everyone killed.

But you don't fail.

That makes it more stupid...

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Except that the Catalyst tells you that you can control the Reapers, not that you can control the Reapers for 5 minutes and then you can't control them anymore and they begin to reap again. That's just ridiculous, and has no evidence in the game.

The Catalyst also tells you that you will die during the Destroy ending, while you survive.

The Catalyst also tells you that Synthesis involves the complete and utter genetic rewrite of every single organism in the known galaxy at the same time, without their immediate knowledge, despite the scientific impossibility in such an act.

I'll believe what he tells me when he's given me proof.

I don't see how real life science has anything to do with a video game.

But you can continue in whatever speculation you want. Simple fact of the matter is that there are only two things which exist in analyzing the ending: what the Catalyst says, and what everyone else wants to make up without evidence.

You're really trying my intelligence, aren't you?

The entire idea behind science fiction is to create a semi-plausible scenario, most likely set in the near or far future, in which a situation is created where a type of technology exists that is traditionally considered "futuristic". See: biotics, kinetic barriers, FTL, mass relays. 

Really, do you hold discussions like this in real life? I dare say you can't have too many friends.

If you think this is the first scenario in Mass Effect which is not scientifically plausible, then I suggest you learn more about everything.

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the endings are scientifcally possible, so you can criticize them all for this perceived flaw or you can criticize none of them. I don't really care which you choose.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:12 .

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I am making valid points and you are ignoring them for your headcanon.  If you think that Shepard's concsiousness was somehow transferred into the Reaper concensus, not only is that highly improbable, but, even if he was, what gives you the assurity that a human will like his can control the wills and thoughts of billions of organic minds poured into a immortal construct?

The fact that the Catalyst says you can. You can believe what he says, or you can make up whatever the hell you want.

I see you people are content to make up whatever the hell you want.

No, he says, "...or do you think you can control us?"  He doesn't actually say we can!

WAKE THE F*CK UP, CATA!  

I'm not making up anything here.  Me personally, I despise the choices given, hell, I despise the whole ending in general but I do not trust the catalyst and I am shocked to see you place such trust in a horrendous plot device like the Catalyst.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I am making valid points and you are ignoring them for your headcanon.  If you think that Shepard's concsiousness was somehow transferred into the Reaper concensus, not only is that highly improbable, but, even if he was, what gives you the assurity that a human will like his can control the wills and thoughts of billions of organic minds poured into a immortal construct?

The fact that the Catalyst says you can. You can believe what he says, or you can make up whatever the hell you want.

I see you people are content to make up whatever the hell you want.

No, he says, "...or do you think you can control us?"  He doesn't actually say we can!

WAKE THE F*CK UP, CATA!  

I'm not making up anything here.  Me personally, I despise the choices given, hell, I despise the whole ending in general but I do not trust the catalyst and I am shocked to see you place such trust in a horrendous plot device like the Catalyst.

Learn to read. I just posted this.

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

[Bill Casey]

He says "You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."

Which is essentially a clever way of saying nothing, because "everything you have" can include his control of the reapers...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[Catamantaloedis]

Bill Casey wrote...

He says "You will control us, but you will lose everything you have."

Which is essentially a clever way of saying nothing, because "everything you have" can include his control of the reapers...

No, it doesnt matter. 

Do you pick apart the wording, to find some hidden insidious meaning, of all of the choices or just control because you don't want to admit that its the best choice?

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:16 .

[o Ventus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Except that the Catalyst tells you that you can control the Reapers, not that you can control the Reapers for 5 minutes and then you can't control them anymore and they begin to reap again. That's just ridiculous, and has no evidence in the game.

The Catalyst also tells you that you will die during the Destroy ending, while you survive.

The Catalyst also tells you that Synthesis involves the complete and utter genetic rewrite of every single organism in the known galaxy at the same time, without their immediate knowledge, despite the scientific impossibility in such an act.

I'll believe what he tells me when he's given me proof.

He doesn''t tell you that you will die during the destroy ending. He says "even you are partly synthetic" which leaves the possibility of you dying being a nonzero probability. And considering the fact that Shepard dies in most of the Destroy endings (except the very highest tier one), the Catalyst wasn't really lying at all.

What exactly do you think the meaning of that implication is? He wasn't saying it just to blow hot air, was he? If the Catalyst had the remotest confidence that you could survive, why bother hinting at your death?

Destroy ending is the only ending where your death is uncertain. The other two endings REQUIRE you to sacrifice yourself. This is why he tells you that you COULD die.

How would it make sense for the Catalyst to know you're above the 4000 EMS threshold to tell you that you will live?

You really asked me that? Well, probably the same way the game can tell you're over the required 4k to even play the cutscene, by tallying your EMS score (Which happens right before Cronos Station). Altering dialogue based on choices you've made? That's never been done before.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I am making valid points and you are ignoring them for your headcanon.  If you think that Shepard's concsiousness was somehow transferred into the Reaper concensus, not only is that highly improbable, but, even if he was, what gives you the assurity that a human will like his can control the wills and thoughts of billions of organic minds poured into a immortal construct?

The fact that the Catalyst says you can. You can believe what he says, or you can make up whatever the hell you want.

I see you people are content to make up whatever the hell you want.

No, he says, "...or do you think you can control us?"  He doesn't actually say we can!

WAKE THE F*CK UP, CATA!  

I'm not making up anything here.  Me personally, I despise the choices given, hell, I despise the whole ending in general but I do not trust the catalyst and I am shocked to see you place such trust in a horrendous plot device like the Catalyst.

Learn to read. I just posted this.

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

Obey what?  His initial command before he dies?  That would make sense.

A disembodied Shepard?  That is implausible.  That is speculation and headcanon.

We don't know. 

This is one of the reasons why the ending is so terrible, because we don't know for sure what each of our options entail.

If you honestly think your headcanon makes the most sense, that is fine, but calling people fools for considering other options?  THAT is foolish and I'd REALLY like to think that you know better.

[Sisterofshane]

ReXspec wrote...

No, he says, "...or do you think you can control us?"  He doesn't actually say we can!

WAKE THE F*CK UP, CATA!  

I'm not making up anything here.  Me personally, I despise the choices given, hell, I despise the whole ending in general but I do not trust the catalyst and I am shocked to see you place such trust in a horrendous plot device like the Catalyst.

I don't know if the argument should be whether you can or can't, but rather if you can indefinitely.

Especially since the crucible and the Citadel still exist, what's to say that sometime down the line someone else might come along and try to gain control from you.

If you feel that your will (and whatever that may pertain, whether it be to control for destruction or for peace) is not suspect to corruption or degradation millenia after your body was dissolved, then by all means, be my guest, and grab the rods.

[MegaSovereign]

Bill Casey wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Zix13 wrote...

Control is stupid. Too likely to fail and get everyone killed.

But you don't fail.

That makes it more stupid...

Why?

Let me guess...because TIM would have wanted to do the same thing?

I guess if TIM likes ice cream then god forbid shepard ever going near it.

Seriously, I'm tired of this reasoning. It's beyond stupid. If there is a way to practically end the Reaper war without doing the most damage to the Galaxy, then why wouldn't you take it?

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Except that the Catalyst tells you that you can control the Reapers, not that you can control the Reapers for 5 minutes and then you can't control them anymore and they begin to reap again. That's just ridiculous, and has no evidence in the game.

The Catalyst also tells you that you will die during the Destroy ending, while you survive.

The Catalyst also tells you that Synthesis involves the complete and utter genetic rewrite of every single organism in the known galaxy at the same time, without their immediate knowledge, despite the scientific impossibility in such an act.

I'll believe what he tells me when he's given me proof.

I don't see how real life science has anything to do with a video game.

But you can continue in whatever speculation you want. Simple fact of the matter is that there are only two things which exist in analyzing the ending: what the Catalyst says, and what everyone else wants to make up without evidence.

You're really trying my intelligence, aren't you?

The entire idea behind science fiction is to create a semi-plausible scenario, most likely set in the near or far future, in which a situation is created where a type of technology exists that is traditionally considered "futuristic". See: biotics, kinetic barriers, FTL, mass relays. 

Really, do you hold discussions like this in real life? I dare say you can't have too many friends.

If you think this is the first scenario in Mass Effect which is not scientifically plausible, then I suggest you learn more about everything.

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the endings are scientifcally possible, so you can criticize them all for this perceived flaw or you can criticize none of them. I don't really care which you choose.

Are you intentionally obtuse, or just stupid? Just because I didn't mention the implausibility of the other endings (Even though I have in regards to control) doesn't mean I think they are plausible in any fashion. The fact that you  really followed that belief reveals a lot about your ability to debate with other people.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

I am making valid points and you are ignoring them for your headcanon.  If you think that Shepard's concsiousness was somehow transferred into the Reaper concensus, not only is that highly improbable, but, even if he was, what gives you the assurity that a human will like his can control the wills and thoughts of billions of organic minds poured into a immortal construct?

The fact that the Catalyst says you can. You can believe what he says, or you can make up whatever the hell you want.

I see you people are content to make up whatever the hell you want.

No, he says, "...or do you think you can control us?"  He doesn't actually say we can!

WAKE THE F*CK UP, CATA!  

I'm not making up anything here.  Me personally, I despise the choices given, hell, I despise the whole ending in general but I do not trust the catalyst and I am shocked to see you place such trust in a horrendous plot device like the Catalyst.

Learn to read. I just posted this.

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

Obey what?  His initial command before he dies?  That would make sense.

A disembodied Shepard?  That is implausible.  That is speculation and headcanon.

We don't know. 

This is one of the reasons why the ending is so terrible, because we don't know for sure what each of our options entail.

If you honestly think your headcanon makes the most sense, that is fine, but calling people fools for considering other options?  THAT is foolish and I'd REALLY like to think that you know better.

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

Except that the Catalyst tells you that you can control the Reapers, not that you can control the Reapers for 5 minutes and then you can't control them anymore and they begin to reap again. That's just ridiculous, and has no evidence in the game.

The Catalyst also tells you that you will die during the Destroy ending, while you survive.

The Catalyst also tells you that Synthesis involves the complete and utter genetic rewrite of every single organism in the known galaxy at the same time, without their immediate knowledge, despite the scientific impossibility in such an act.

I'll believe what he tells me when he's given me proof.

I don't see how real life science has anything to do with a video game.

But you can continue in whatever speculation you want. Simple fact of the matter is that there are only two things which exist in analyzing the ending: what the Catalyst says, and what everyone else wants to make up without evidence.

You're really trying my intelligence, aren't you?

The entire idea behind science fiction is to create a semi-plausible scenario, most likely set in the near or far future, in which a situation is created where a type of technology exists that is traditionally considered "futuristic". See: biotics, kinetic barriers, FTL, mass relays. 

Really, do you hold discussions like this in real life? I dare say you can't have too many friends.

If you think this is the first scenario in Mass Effect which is not scientifically plausible, then I suggest you learn more about everything.

The simple fact of the matter is that none of the endings are scientifcally possible, so you can criticize them all for this perceived flaw or you can criticize none of them. I don't really care which you choose.

Are you intentionally obtuse, or just stupid? Just because I didn't mention the implausibility of the other endings (Even though I have in regards to control) doesn't mean I think they are plausible in any fashion. The fact that you  really followed that belief reveals a lot about your ability to debate with other people.

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Modifié par ReXspec, 03 juin 2012 - 04:28 .

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you must pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 03 juin 2012 - 04:30 .

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Where is it suggested that the Reapers will be able to come back? There is no evidence for it whatsoever. 

There is evidence that somehow Shepard is able to control the Reapers after his bodily death, and if this is through the imposition of his current morals on the Reapers' code or through a conscious control of them, then this should ensure that they never return and that they do what Shepard would have done.

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

... What? I find that attempting to make sense typically helps when talking to another human being. You should try it.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

You are being logically obtuse!  OF COURSE it's disengenuous, but not on Ventus' part!  That is the writers fault!  They came up with the logic that you just elaborated on--it makes no sense!  they forced the players to choose between the lesser of three evils.

Modifié par ReXspec, 03 juin 2012 - 04:31 .

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Where is it suggested that the Reapers will be able to come back? There is no evidence for it whatsoever. 

There is evidence that somehow Shepard is able to control the Reapers after his bodily death, and if this is through the imposition of his current morals on the Reapers' code or through a conscious control of them, then this should ensure that they never return and that they do what Shepard would have done.

Evidence like what?

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

... What? I find that attempting to make sense typically helps when talking to another human being. You should try it.

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

[Catamantaloedis]

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Where is it suggested that the Reapers will be able to come back? There is no evidence for it whatsoever. 

There is evidence that somehow Shepard is able to control the Reapers after his bodily death, and if this is through the imposition of his current morals on the Reapers' code or through a conscious control of them, then this should ensure that they never return and that they do what Shepard would have done.

Evidence like what?

I never would have guessed that I would have to post this three times:

Kid: You will die; you will control us but you will lose everything you have.
Sheperd: But the Reapers will obey me?
Kid: Yes.

[o Ventus]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

I tried to make a simple analogy, and it seems my efforts failed or you just dont want to mention that your criticism was not valid. 

All of the endings were implausible. Therefore you can not criticize one ending in particular for being impossible when they all were.

So am I supposed to criticize all 3 of them in a thread that focuses on only one of them? Logical fallacy, you win again.

[ReXspec]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If its just the initial command to stop attacking, but the Reapers are no longer under his direct control afterwards, then that just makes the Destroy ending redundant. Both would result in the Reapers just more or less "going away". The only difference being that in Destroy you get the added bonus of the death of all synthetics. That doesnt make sense.

Destroy kills all the Reapers.  This is implied when the star brat says, "I know you thought about destroying us."  This means are they wiped out of existence for good.

I don't like destroy, but it makes the most sense because that was the objective in the first place:  "We destroy them, or they destroy us."  There is no getting around this.

But you are half-correct--Control would result in little more than the Reapers "going away" for an indeterminate amount of time before coming back and beginning their harvest again.  Choosing control doesn't make sense.  That is exactly the problem a lot of folks have with Control.

Where is it suggested that the Reapers will be able to come back? There is no evidence for it whatsoever. 

There is evidence that somehow Shepard is able to control the Reapers after his bodily death, and if this is through the imposition of his current morals on the Reapers' code or through a conscious control of them, then this should ensure that they never return and that they do what Shepard would have done.

There is no evidence that they WON'T come back if he chooses control either.  Would you rather make the choice that garuntees the death of the Reapers, or place your bets on keeping them alive and hope they never restart the Cycle?  There is no grey-area here:  The choice is pretty damn obvious.

[Catamantaloedis]

ReXspec wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

So you admit that you criticized Control alone for being implausible, even though you realize that all of the endings are implausible?

And you really believe that this is perfectly logical? I feel sorry for your parents.

What in the hell are you talking about? Of course I'm only going to mention Control, talking about Synthesis or Destroy is derailing a Control thread. I mentioned Destroy and Synthesis in passing (Again, pointing out that they are implausible), and you decided to draw it into a separate discussion.

You're blaming me for something that's your fault.

So if three of your colleagues make food for you, from which you pick the best, and even though all the food tastes absolutely terrible, you would only call the food of the colleague you hate the most "disgusting", simply because you like him the least correct?

This is not disingenuous in the least is it?

You are being logically obtuse!  OF COURSE it's disengenuous, but not on Ventus' part!  That is the writers fault!  They came up with the logic that you just elaborated on--it makes no sense!  they forced the players to choose between the lesser of three evils.

It's disingenuous on his part because he criticizes control for being implausible when all of the endings are implausible. Synthesis being the most implausible of all, of course. 

And control is the lesser of these evils. In fact, it is almost entirely good.